Advocate Didn't Disclose That His Wife Was Opposite Party In Client's Case : Supreme Court Upholds BCI Penalty
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend the license of an advocate found guilty of professional misconduct. It was based on the findings in an inquiry by Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council that the advocate did not disclose that his wife was the opposite party in the property dispute case taken up by him.The Supreme court bench comprising Justices...
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India to suspend the license of an advocate found guilty of professional misconduct. It was based on the findings in an inquiry by Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council that the advocate did not disclose that his wife was the opposite party in the property dispute case taken up by him.
The Supreme court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjoy Karol was hearing an appeal against BCI's order holding him guilty of professional misconduct.
The court however noted that the advocate had already surrendered his license in 2016, so nothing remained against him.
The court observed "an affidavit dated 22.07.2023 has been filed by A-1 in which he has stated that he has given up his legal practice in the year 2016 and that he shall not resume his legal practice in future. In view of this Undertaking, now nothing survives in the appeal preferred by the complainant."
As far as his son was concerned, who was practicing as a junior colleague with him, the court took a lenient view since it was only one year in his practice and couldn't have known about the personal interest of his mother in the property.
The court directed him to submit a fresh undertaking and held that "The Undertaking should be that A-2 shall maintain the highest professional standards and shall abide by the Rules of Ethics framed by the Bar Council. Giving such an Undertaking will suffice the purpose."
The Apex court affirmed the penalty of 1 lakh imposed by BCI and directed 50,000 to be given to the complainant while the rest to Advocates Welfare Fund.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The complainant had submitted that a woman had filed a suit against him claiming title of property. He had appointed the advocate and his practitioner son to represent him but they didn't disclose that the woman was in fact the wife of the advocate.
After a full fledged inquiry, the disciplinary committee of Bar council of Maharashtra and Goa suspended the license of the advocate and reprimanded his son.
In the appeal, BCI confirmed the penalty and directed the advocates to deposit 1 lakh rupees. The advocate's son was let off with an undertaking that he won't commit any misconduct in future.
Case title: Mr Laxman Bappa Ji Naik v. Ranjeet@Ranu Yadav Dokh
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 635